The Cancer Research Industry
By Simon Mitchell
Many volunteers world-wide commit themselves to raising
funds for cancer research and cancer charities. Many hundreds of thousands
more work in the industry as carers, or researching, prescribing,
diagnosing and manufacturing drugs. Huge companies spend fortunes
on cancer research. After so long and so many billions spent what
exactly has cancer research revealed?
There have been regular breakthroughs in our understanding
of cancer, but little progress in its treatment. Modern research into
cancer began in the 1940’s and 50’s when scientists isolated
substances that killed cancer cells growing in a petri dish, or leukaemia
cells in laboratory mice. Early successes in chemotherapy set the
pace and received much media exposure, even though they only applied
to 5% of cancer treatments at most.
Serving humanity by solving its major diseases has
a celebrity status, there is a lot of kudos and an air of Hollywood
involved in such things. Cancer research is high profile activity
and every now and then a scientific treatment is discovered that gains
wide recognition, such as the HPV-16 trial, but it only applies itself
to the treatment of a small percentage of cancers.
Mass-media hype is part of the problem of how we see
cancer. Early discoveries set up an expectation that there was a cure-all
treatment, a ‘magic bullet’ that would make its discoverer
famous by curing cancer across the world. The idea stems in part from
aspirin, the original bullet that magically finds its way to the pain
and diminishes it.
In the 1950’s and 60’s huge and expensive
research projects were set up to test every known substance to see
if it effected cancer cells. You might remember the discovery of the
Madagascar Periwinkle (Catharansus Roseus), which revealed alkaloids
(vinblastine and vincristine) that are still used in chemotherapy
today.
Taxol, a treatment for ovarian and breast cancer originally
came from the Pacific Yew tree. A treatment for testicular cancer
and small-cell lung cancer called ‘Etoposide’ was derived
from the May apple. In ‘Plants Used Against Cancer’ by
Jonathan Hartwell over 3,000 plants are identified from medical and
folklore sources for treating cancer, about half of which have been
shown to have some effect on cancer cells in a test tube.
When these plants are made into synthetic drugs, single
chemicals are isolated and the rest of the plant is usually thrown
away. The medicinally active molecules are extracted from the plant
and modified until they are chemically unique. Then the compound is
patented, given a brand name and tested.
In the first phase it will generally be tested on
animals, the second phase will decide dosage levels and in phase 3
it is tested on people. By the time it is approved by the Federal
Drugs Authority (in U.S.A.) or the Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulation Agency (M.H.R.A.) in Britain, the development costs for
a new drug can reach five hundred million dollars, which eventually
has to be recouped from the consumer.
In addition to ‘treatment directed’ research
such as finding chemicals that effect cancer cells, basic research
continues apace, into differences between normal and cancerous cells.
In the last 30 years this research has revealed much about our nature,
but still no cure. Below are some current strands of scientific research
into cancer.
Antibody-guided therapy: this is
the original ‘magic bullet’. Cancer researchers use monoclonal
antibodies to carry poisons directly to the cancer cells without harming
others.
Chronobiology: much of what happens
in our bodies is governed by cycles, from the female monthly cycle
to the cycles of brainwaves. Human health depends on interacting cycles
geared to acts of perception, breathing, reproduction and renewal.
Chronobiology analyses these cycles in relation to different times,
such as day and night. Hormones, including stress and growth hormones,
have their own cycles. For example they may be at their highest activity
in the morning and quieter at night. Cancer cells seem to no longer
obey the same cycle rates as normal cells.
Anti-telomerase: one part of a cell,
called the telomerase, governs the life cycle of a cell and how many
times it may multiply. Some cancer cells escape this control and can
increase the number of times they divide, becoming ‘immortal’.
Researchers hope to gain control over cancer cells by stopping the
action of telomerase.
Anti-angiogenesis: secondary tumours
(metastasis) can persuade the cells around them to grow new blood
vessels to feed the tumours, supplying oxygen and nutrients for the
growing cancer. This process is called angiogenesis and research here
is finding ways to stop the signals to normal cells that start the
process.
Anti-adhesion molecules: Cancer cells
form into clumps, unlike those in a petri dish which form into a flatter
arrangement. When there are clumps of cells they seem to possess a
quality that resists treatment. This strand of research looks at ways
that can stop the cells clumping together, by dissolving the clumps
for more effective treatment.
Anti-oncogene products: specific
portions of D.N.A., called oncogenes, that have an important role
in promoting cancer growth. Drugs that interfere with the production
of oncogenes may be useful for the future treatment of cancer.
Gene therapy: research into the use
of tumour suppressant genes is highlighted in the British National
Cancer Plan as an important element. Essentially, bits of DNA are
inserted to replace missing or damaged genes, possibly preventing
the development of cancer in someone who might be ‘high risk’.
Vaccines: very quietly the search
for a general cure for cancer is being put aside in preference to
finding a vaccine. The whole idea of a cure or treatment that is ‘the
same for everybody’ breaks down in the case of the specific,
chaotic conditions that cause cancer in an individual person. After
billions spent on research for the holy grail of a cancer cure, the
search is now on to find a vaccine.
At a recent cancer immunology conference in the US
top immunologists from 21 nations attended lectures on the latest
immunology topics such as:cancer immunosurveillance, immunoediting,
cancer antigen discovery, monitoring and analysing the immunological
response to human cancer, cancer vaccine development.
The Cancer Vaccine Collaborative (CVC) was launched
to much excitement. It is a unique research program that should improve
how cancer vaccines are developed, based on a collaboration of six
New York medical centres and one in Minnesota. The aim of their research
is to find out how to effectively immunise against cancer using a
vaccine, using ‘action research’.
Vaccines made from donor blood are proving to work
for some cancers. Experiments with bone marrow transplants show there
are about 40,000 different tissue types making it hard to find a match.
Usually a perfect match can only be found within the patient’s
direct family. Incorrect matches can create a host of secondary diseases.
Scientist are finding ways to train Killer T cells
taken either from the host or a donor, to more effectively attack
cancer cells. They have noticed that donor Killer T cells that are
already ‘primed’ for a particular cancer (e.g. the donor
body cells ‘remember’ the disease) can be highly effective.
It may take many years to prove validity, reliability,
safety and efficacy for this treatment. Harvesting the natural immunity
of our own, or donor cells with the aid of genetic engineering may
well become a big player against modern immune attacking dis-eases.
Increased screening: this type of
research looks at genetically identifying individuals who might be
at high risk of certain types of cancer and is partly a preparation
for possible vaccines. Genetic counselling is set to become a 21st
century contributor to health care based on prevention of disease
as much as cure.
Combinations: research from West
Germany (Grossart-Maticek) argues that there is no single cause for
cancer, similar to the pattern in most chronic illness. It shows there
are environmental, psychological and spiritual dimensions to disease.
The implication is that treatment should be on the same levels, and
that no single treatment is likely to be effective because there is
no single cause. This observation links with the position of many
Holistic practitioners who often have a wider view of health than
orthodox medical practitioners.
Dr. Robert Buckman is an experienced cancer researcher,
and author of the informative book: ‘What You Really Need
to Know About Cancer’. He summarises what he sees as the
present position of scientific cancer research:
"We now have a very large number of ways of
looking at cancer cells in the laboratory. We have thousands of
different types of cancer cells growing in dishes, many of which
can be grown and then cured in laboratory bred mice. We also have
thousands of different ways of looking at and testing those cells.
We can look at the cells’ growth, their abilities to produce
different substances, their sensitivity to some chemotherapy drugs
and their resistance to others, the way they respond to growth factors,
their genetic material including oncogenes and substances controlled
by oncogenes, their ability to effect other cells (of the immune
system, for example), their ability to damage membranes and invade,
their structure under the electron microscope and whether or not
the cell surface has any of hundreds of different marker molecules
on it. These are just a few examples of what can be done nowadays:
the complete list of ways in which cancer cells can be tested would
probably be longer than this entire book. But here is the snag:
although this accumulation of experience is wonderful and commendable,
cancer in human beings is far more complicated then any laboratory
system can ever be (at least in the light of current knowledge)".
This is an extract from 'Don't Get Cancer' a new
ebook available only at: http://www.simonthescribe.co.uk/don'tget1.html
Citing static survival rates, the medical establishment's
support of "proven cures" including chemotherapy and its
refusal to fund research into other therapies, Moss reveals that the
medical establishment favors drug companies, carcinogen-causing and
pollution-causing industries rather than potential and actual patients.
PW called this a "tough-minded updated version of his 1980 The
Cancer Syndrome ."
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.
